The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially regarding the intent to cause death under Section 307/34, IPC, and the reliance on the testimony of related witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sheo Ram Singh and Sri. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Mayank Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants Ramesh and Vikramaditya alias Dhelai under Section 374(2), Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 23.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Azarhgarh passed in Session Trial No. 82 of 2001 (State v. Ramesh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 1998, Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh whereby Ramesh and Vikramaditya alias Dhelai were convicted under sections 307/34, 325/34, 323/34, 504, IPC and sentenced to six years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- each under section 307/34, IPC, three years' imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each under section 325/34, IPC, six months' imprisonment each under section 323/34, IPC and six months' imprisonment each under section 504, IPC. In default in deposition of fine, they have to undergo additional six months' imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. In the nutshell, according to prosecution case, FIR was lodged by Nagdu Yadav against four persons namely Ramesh Yadav, Vikramaditya alias Dhelai, Kamla Yadav and Chandi Pandey alleging that on 28.11.1998 at 5 p.m. on exhortation of Kamla Yadav, Ramesh opened fire at complainant which hit on his hand; Vikramaditya alias Dhelai and Chandi Pandey assaulted him with sticks (lathi). Witnesses Jagdish Yadav, Ram Naresh and other family members saw the incident and tried to save the complainant. Initially NCR No. 205/98 was lodged under section 323, 504 IPC on 29.11.1998.

4. Medical examination of injured Nagdu Yadav was done by Dr. Satendra Kumar Pandey on 29.11.1998. Injured received following six injuries.

(1) Contusion 9 cm x 7 cm on lateral aspect of right upper arm 10 cm above elbow joint, transverse bluish red.

(2) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm. x muscle deep on posterior aspect of right forearm 10 cm below right elbow joint, clotted blood present. Metallix foreign body felt in the wound:

(3) Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on posterior aspect of right forearm 6 cm above wrist joint. Transverse, swelling, tenderness and crapita present.

(4) Traumatic swelling on right middle finger 4 cm above its tip.

(5) Pain on right leg but no mark of external injury seen.

(6) Contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on posterior aspect of right ankle joint 9 and half cm above heel.

Except injury Nos. 2 and 3, all injuries were found: simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object.

According to x-ray report, a single small foreign body is seen superficially just below skin of right forearm and in injury No. 3 recent fracture was seen in lower part of right ulna. According to opinion of Dr. S.K. Pandey injury No. 2 is simple in nature and caused by firearm (gun pellet seen) and injury No. 3 is grievous in nature caused by blunt and hard object.

5. Case was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken, file was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 Nagdu Yadav, P.W. 2 Jagdish, P.W.-3 Dr. S.K. Singh, P.W. 4 Retired S.I. Gorakhnath Singh and P.W. 5 Dr. Satyendra Kumar Pandey. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that they have been falsely implicated. D.W. 1 Gaya Prasad Upadhyaya was produced in defence. During trial, accused Chandi Pandey and accused Kamla Yadav expired, hence case was abated against both accused.

7. After hearing learned counsel for accused/appellants and Assistant Government Counsel (Criminal) for the State, impugned judgment and order was passed. Hence, this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that this is a case of single witness. P.W. 1 is interested and injured witness. P.W. 2 Jagdish (so